Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday March 11, 2011 @10:36AM
from the flexible-boundaries dept.

RogueyWon writes "Kotaku is reporting that a Dragon Age II gamer banned from BioWare's forums for an allegedly inflammatory post has been locked out of the (singleplayer only) game for the duration of the ban. This is a consequence of EA's backend systems, which link forum accounts to the accounts that players use to access their games. This would appear to be a worrying new development; while trolling forums has led to bans from massively multiplayer games in the past (arguably with some justification), the extension of the principle to singleplayer games, where an abusive player cannot affect the enjoyment of others, must surely be a step too far."

Ah, in true slashdot spirit the summary "forgets" a few things from the story. First of all, he wasn't banned from playing the game. He bought the game from EA online store and because he was banned, the installer didn't work. And to be honest, for me that sounds more like a bug than EA trying to ban him from a single player game.

The distinction is important because there is a difference between EA knowingly and intentionally banning the user from single-player game, and EA accidently banning the user from single-player game. If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.

>>If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.

Except it does sound like working-as-intended.

But then again, this is the same company that jumped onto the social media bandwagon, merged their accounts with EA, corrupting them in the process so that I both couldn't log on and couldn't reset the password (it would fall into an infinite loop). And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2, which promptly killed their servers and forced (well, if that's the right word) people to play the demo over and over until the damn servers stayed up long enough to get credit for it. If it dropped even once during the demo, you wouldn't get credit at the end.

And so forth. I believe they're both incompetent *and* filled with hate and malice.

But if that is true AC then that means this is just yet another example of when the pirate game is the better version as yet again the badly designed DRM bites the customer in the ass. I've had to go and download the cracked version of games I bought and paid for because the DRM was such a PITA I spent more time fighting it than I did the bad guys.

The problem is these damned games companies seem to be forgetting we are the ones that pay them and that they DO have competition in the form of piracy. If I feel mistreated and ripped off after I give you my money and your shitty DRM causes me nothing but grief, why would I not just pirate the next version and save myself some grief?

To use the famous/. car analogy: If I have two car lots and one offers me a car for x dollars and proceeds to kick the shit out of me when I pay while the lot across the street may have cars of dubious origin but not only don't charge me, but treats me well? Wouldn't be a hard choice for most folks.

These companies either need to go the Good Old Games approach and offer us DRM free with rewards for buying, like how GOG gives you extras like soundtracks and strategy guides, or just agree to go with Steam with NO extra DRM bullshit. Because not only is this DRM a PITA but as a repairman I can tell you SecuROM and the others Can and DO cause system instability and a host of other problems including but not limited to burnt DVD/CD drives. For example certain versions of that crap WILL happily install x86 Ring 0 DRM into a 64 bit OS and then not only screw shit up since you have an x86 driver in Win X64, but then the uninstaller doesn't work and you get the "fun" of either dual booting and cleaning it out from the other OS or a couple of hours in safe mode editing the registry and removing files.

Ah but you see they are working hard to eliminate the competition from piracy. I don't have DA2 yet, but notice with DA1 it logs you in every time you try and play? The infrastructure around the game is now like an MMO even if the content itself is single player. If you don't log in, you don't have access to any of the downloaded content (which fairly quickly can become problematic if you rely on any of it for gameplay).

With ME2 EA claimed to look at piracy as get another venue to get customers to buy DL

I guess I get your point, which is essentially, companies need to realize that people will pirate their games and so they should not provide impetus for this behavior. However, the truth of this statement makes me sad. What about the old-fashioned option of not buying the game *and* not stealing it? Why is it necessary to play the game at all?

I guess what gets me is that people seem to feel that they have an inherent right to play games. Thus, if they cannot afford the game or they disagree with the des

I bet five will get you ten they were using shitty Ring 0 DRM that was written for x86. You actually got lucky as I have seen Ring 0 x86 crap install into x64 and the the uninstaller WILL NOT UNINSTALL no matter what you do and the Ring 0 crap since it can't read 64 bit code will cause the whole system to become as unstable as Win9x as it assumes you're a pirate and tries to constantly rescan.

For a perfect example that you can point to when someone says "the DRM isn't obtrusive, it doesn't hurt legit customers, blah blah blah" I'd suggest you watch this video [metacafe.com] (warning language NSFW, but when you see why he is POed you'll understand) and bookmark it to answer the pro DRM crowd. Also take note and point out the literally dozens of games boxed behind him lining the shelves which he points out many no longer work thanks to DRM.

So consider yourself lucky Jitterman, as you'd be amazed how many customers CD/DVD burners I've had to throw away thanks to DRM throwing them into PIO mode and burning the motors, or how many times a customer has had to pay me because "I think I have a virus" which turns out to be shitty DRM that is as nasty as any badly written malware and can take a rock solid XP or Windows 7 system and bring it to its knees. I'd also suggest frequent backups as well as system restore points before any game install if you are running x64, since as I said many x86 Ring 0 DRM crap WILL install itself onto x64 without warning or user interaction and proceed to make an unholy mess of your system.

But yet again the legit customer gets burned, the pirate has a game that "just works" and runs better than the legit version with fewer bugs and errors as well as needing fewer resources. Sad isn't it?

You're welcome, I just try to warn folks as most of the new machines are X64 and I've found out the hard way after having to clean broken SecuROM and Safedisc installs.

Sadly the best protection you can give yourself besides the weekly backup (which if you'd like a free program I'd recommend Paragon Backup and Recovery Free [paragon-software.com] as it has many of the normally pay features like Bootable restore CD and differential disc imaging) and making a restore point before an install is to go to GameCopyWorld [gamecopyworld.com] and get the NoC

Except that you're wrong. Follow the first link in the summary, scroll down to the last post:

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum and/or issues reported by fellow community members.

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

It strikes me as odd that so many people are so weak-minded that they can't even handle a somewhat insulting comment (mere words). Even if this were an MMO, such a punishment would, to me, be ridiculous. Really, if you're that afraid of words, you should lock yourself up in a location far, far away from other people and make sure you can communicate with no one.

There were times in days past when being an asshole would get you killed.

And? The fact that things could be worse doesn't change the fact that the current situation needs to be fixed. That's a ridiculous way of thinking. Any situation could be worse and seem trivial compared to a much worse situation.

The phrase "them's fighting words" once really did have some meaning.

To imbeciles who would attack others for having a different opinion than themselves, at least. Initiating violence for such a trivial thing is idiotic.

Words DO have consequences behind them

I suggest that people toughen up. They should not get angry or sad because of mere words. That does them no good. In reality, you ca

The summary does indeed make it sound as if the guy was banned from playing a game that was already installed and running, thus being banned from using something already in his possession. After all, there is a login screen in the game. There is a bit difference between being barred from downloading something and being barred from actually using it after it was purchased and installed.

Actually, it is, since the failure point comes in at a different moment. It's like having a television delivered. The actual case is akin to expecting the TV to show up today, so you clear some space to deal with that, and plan to use it that night. Then you get a call and get told "it's not showing up today." Yeah, it sucks, but it's not there, so there's not much you can do. Preventing someone from playing an already installed game is having the TV show up, and get set up, but then the delivery people stand there and slap your hand away from the remote any time you go to use it. It's there, there's no real reason you couldn't use it, except some gatekeeper's making you not.

EA's installation manager is actually a *download* manager. It's merely delaying the delivery of digital goods due to a flaw in the backend stating that no deliveries can be made to that address when someone clicked an option to stop other kinds of activity from that address. If you can't see the functional difference in the situations, it's because you're being wilfully stubborn.

Its really a story about idiots who buy their games online. Unless you're getting seriously steep discounts, physical media should always be preferred.

My experience is that it doesn't really matter anymore. Almost every game has some kind of online activation or account, if that one is down having the CD/DVD won't help you. And if that works then it doesn't matter if the download is a few bytes or ten gigabytes.

I suppose in theory having physical media give you other options like phoning for a code - if that number is still active, of course. And if you first need a crack, surely someone will pack the full game + crack as well.

Yes. Mental note. If I want to play their shitty game (which I don't) I had better pirate it rather than buy it just in case they arbitrarily decide to prevent me from playing a game I paid them money for. Glad they cleared up that moral ambiguity for me.

Pirated games are much less likely to install a rootkit on your machine than an original games. The rootkits are usual removed from the original game when they are cracked. It you care about viruses or being hacked you should use cracked games.

Digital purchases offer many advantages that physical media does not have.

I own over 200 games on Steam. I can play any one of them anytime. I have purchased well over 1000 games over the course of my life - except I can't find majority of them, the rest have scratched up disks, lost CDkeys, lost manuals and hard to find patches.

I can go on travel bring nothing but my laptop and play any game I own from the hotel room.

I have reached the point where I REFUSE to buy physical media because of the inconvenience of actually using it. Need the disk to play, need to carry disks with me for every game I may wish to play, need to manually patch everything.

Log in one one machine. Install game. Put steam in Offline mode. Play game on multiple PCs at same time.

Personally, I couldn't care less about loaning games or selling them. To me the convenience of not having to care about physical media and having every single game I own available anywhere that I have an internet connection is worth it.

Ultimately many physical games today have DRM that prevents sales, loans etc due to the limited number of installations, one tim

This means you're conflating things and giving an extremely poor interpretation in order to invalidate an otherwise valid point. The simple fact is, unless ALL games are tied to steam, while unfortunate, it doesn't invalidate my point in the least.

Portal was just the natural end to the progression.

The point I'm making is that its not an argument between physical media and virtual download. Its a question of DRM or no DRM. The method by which the game is obtained is irrelevant.

Sorry, but wrong in some cases. The closest store to my house that would carry this game is Wal-mart. I don't shop at Wal-mart, so the next closest is Target. Sold out. The next closest after that is Best Buy. Ok, purchased, drive home....my son has already purchased downloaded and installed DA2 and is level 3 already. So much for "10 minutes".

On your first point - the effect of the ban was to prevent the user from installing (and hence playing) the game. It wasn't that they prevented the user from buying the game (which would have been stupid, but arguably less evil) but rather that money had changed hands and the user wasn't able to access the game due to the ban. Given the space limitations on story titles and summaries, this felt like a fair summing up to me.

On the second point, I had first hoped, when I read TFA, that this was due to a backend bug. However, the response from Bioware makes it fairly clear that from their point of view, this is "working as intended".

If this were a massively multiplayer game, I would agree entirely. In fact, if this was a ban from the multiplayer portion of an online and offline game, I would also agree. However, the Dragon Age games are resolutely single-player only. You can't actually ruin somebody else's experience of the game, in the way that shouting and screaming in a movie theatre would ruin the movie for others.

I don't like to push an analogy too far, but I think there's a better one here. This is like buying a DVD from a store and then standing around in the store shouting abuse. The staff would be absolutely within their rights to remove you from the store, but not to confiscate the DVD you'd bought off you as well.

I don't like to push an analogy too far, but I think there's a better one here. This is like buying a DVD from a store and then standing around in the store shouting abuse. The staff would be absolutely within their rights to remove you from the store, but not to confiscate the DVD you'd bought off you as well.

Ah, but no-one had "bought" anything! This user has "licensed" a piece of software and EA/Bioware have simply unilaterally revoked that licence; a prerogative they enjoy by virtue of their control of

No, it's more like you ordered the DVD online from Disney, then went to their park and acted like an ass, so they looked up any pending purchases you had and put them on hold for the duration of your ban from the park, and then mailed them out after the temporary ban subsided.

There are precedents, in the full legal sense of the word. Most states adopted specific laws in the 1920's and 30's for places doing public performance so that they had precedents on their side if they needed, say, to eject some patron for rowdyness. In most states, there is an implied contract law even though the patron doesn't actually sign a contract when they buy a ticket. You're talking about some past situations that can be vaguely analogized, and cases where those analogies fly in the face of the act

This is a very significant difference. It seems like it basically amounts to a bug in the installer that will get sorted out soon. This is *very* different from them having a kill switch that they can engage to prevent you from playing the game.

The summary makes it sound like he was happily playing the game, decided to make some asshat posts in the forums, and then could not access the game anymore as a result. The story itself is barely newsworthy...bug in a new game prevent

Now while they maybe should look at separating forum bans from over all account bans, still this is a rather different situation than "They banned him from the game." No, they banned him from their site. Now he'd bought the game from their site, but not yet installed it. That did mean that he couldn't install the game. However that is not the same as taking away the game from him. Had he bought the game elsewhere, like Impulse, Steam, or a retail store, there would have been no effect.

Violation of rights? What if Ford banned you from your car for inflammatory remarks? This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled... Someone needs to give the gaming industry a good dose of "Act Right". Taking away our right to resell games, horribly restrictive TOS, crap tons of DRM, now remote disabling if you annoy them...

The game wasn't remotely disabled. Because he bought it from EA's online store, and because the download/installation requires account authentication, he couldn't download/install it because he account was temporarily disabled... If he had already installed the game before being an asshat on the forums, he would be happily playing it right now. Sounds more like a possible bug than an evil corporation trying to strip everyone of their rights to electronic entertainment if you ask me.

I think a more relevant analogy would be buying a Ford, you hurling abuse on the forecourt of the only Ford dealer in town and then that Ford dealer not allowing you on their property to pickup the car when it's ready.

You aren't banned from the car, rather banned from the only available means of getting hold of the car.

In both the real and analogous cases, the common sense solution would be for either a workaround or a refund. But no-one likes common sense in the land of media and blogosphere hyperbole.

No, that would be a totally irrelevant analogy, because there is no physical space for him to violate, nor any risk to them that he will be able to badmouth them on their "property" simply by downloading and installing the game that they accepted his money for.

The product was not remotely disabled. The summary is misleading on that respect.

The game had not yet been installed. Part of the installation process is a check for an active EA account (to make sure you're authorized to use the installer, and haven't just pirated it). Since his account was banned, he could not use the installer.

That is one of the reasons that I don't buy many games anymore. That being said, you also have to understand that when enough people do buy the games anyway, and it becomes an industry standard, it becomes an act of opting out of society.

If he paid for it, then they're telling him he can't USE it, he should be entitled to demand a refund. That simple. He didn't pay for the privilege of getting banned. Does anyone know if he sought a refund?

I have no problem with the company banning him, but I do have a problem with not returning his purchase price when they refuse to offer what he gave money for. or, do you think its more like a 'donation' and they 'opt' to give you your goods or not at their discretion?

don't be an ass. give him his money back and then just part company.

if the game co does not return his money, they are looking at BEING SUED themselves, for theft. yes, not kidding.

The fact that he did not use the software in the time period between him purchasing the license and losing it due to the breach of it's terms is irrelevant. They cannot be sued for anything and owe him nothing. They are acting within their rights.

Once again, I am not saying that what they are doing is not morally wrong, but it is legal.

in ANY country in modern civ, if you pay for a product and the vendor refuses to deliver, that's breach of contract.

plain and simple.

I would also think that invoking the 'fitness for purpose' law would also be effective. ie, if you bought widget X and it was advertised to do Y but it would not at all do Y, that was a misrep. on fitness of purpose and you are owed a refund.

this guy needs to sue the company. I'd donate to it, in fact. I hate companies that get away with 'we can because

You do not seem to understand. The breach of that "contract" was performed by the user: the contract was not a purchase in which goods must be exchanged, but a license allowing the user to install the software so long as he or she adheres to the terms. Since the user violated the terms, he is in breach of contract, his license is revoked, and therefore he has no claim.

As the parent poster said, it does not make it right or justifiable, just legal.

I don't believe that by paying for software that you are agreeing to the terms in service. You would first have to DOWNLOAD the software and be presented with the Terms of Service on install. As he was NOT able to download and install, he then never actually agreed to the Terms of Service and therefore should be given a refund.

In a consumer contract of unequal bargaining power, the stronger party to the contract cannot deny to the weaker party the whole of the benefits under the contract and then rely upon a limitation or exclusion clause in the contract to justify that breach and denial of the very benefits to the other party which goes to the root of the contract.

In the old days, we called this a fundamental breach (Suisse Atlantique) . Now, we just call it a breach, followed by a refusal to apply the exclusion clause for reasons of unconscionability in a consumer contractual setting (Tercon Contractors v. B.C.; Hunter v. Syncrude).

Either way, EA's conduct as described in the article appears to me to be, beyond much doubt, plainly unlawful -- and the suggestion it is "legal" because of a provision in a EULA that they could never rely upon in court is wholly misguided.

This is an academic discussion unless and until somebody was to sue EA over a matter like this, but to excuse the conduct of a bully by suggesting it is "legal" is both morally -- and legally -- wrong.

End result: a software company cannot fundamentally breach a contract and then rely upon the terms of the EULA to get them off the hook and avoid a claim for rescission of the contract. The law doesn't work that way. Not for huge transportation companies with a global reach, not for monstrously large insurers upon which all modern commerce depends, and not for a comparatively small, "chump change", consumer products corporation like EA, either.

All of this crap was really writing on the wall the moment we started down the "$FOO is licensed, not sold" road. The rest is just technical implementation details of the measures needed to keep the remote systems, and their users, in line.

If you are a game reviewer and you displease the publisher or developer today, you can pay the price, tomorrow. You'll be cut off from demos, early reviews, meetings, press events and other access to their people or games.

Now, we can finally extend that to the consumers. Too critical of our company, developers, DLC practices, or product? Oops, sorry! Enjoy your next year without access to your "owned" content.

On a different note, although that was not proved, since he could not access the forum or download the game, there is a chance he would not be able to login if he had it installed.this kind of online authentication for a single player game is just wrong, regardless of anything else.

Well, good. Dicks need a solid pounding from time to time, to remind them that throwing down has consequences online as well as in meatspace.

Being a dick says a lot about your character, but other than alienating yourself from people who don't want to be around dicks, it really should carry no consequences whatsoever. Hell, I think your comment is quite dickish, but I don't think you should be banned from posting to slashdot because of it, much less banned from using all the other Geeknet sites, like sourceforge. However, such a drastic move would be analogous to what happened to this particular guy.

..In a world where it is ok for a restaurant to refuse to serve any TSA agents and your employer can fire you for burning a koran on your own time, why *can't* a game company revoke service from a troll?

I think all three are really shitty, but chances are most people only disagree with 1 or 2 of the above and those are the people who make it all possible.

Although I do not hold TSA agents in high regard (because they have chosen to aid and abet in eroding civil liberties in the United States), I do not dislike any TSA agents personally. More so than anything, I pity that they must come to work and play a game of charades each day. But I associate the TSA with corruption, incompetence, and un-Americanism. Looking at it through that perspective, I cannot blame the restaurant owner for choosing the course of action he has embarked upon.

There is a huge difference between all 3 (assuming your post is accurate, citation would be nice).

1) Refusing service has always been an option. The only things we have said you cant refuse service for is age, race, and disability.2) This is a disgusting practice which is legal in some states. I agree it is absurd3) The difference here is he PAID for the product in question. This is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME, not a service.

Refusal of service is one thing, however it is generally required to refuse service, to do it before collecting the money. I mean if this were a physical store, someone walks in and asks to buy a game after ticking off the manager, the manager can send him out of the store immidiately that is perfectly find, or the resteraunt can kick the TSA agents out of the resteraunt that is perfectly legal. However in this case it's like the resteraunt seated the TSA, took their order, took their money and then kicked

Thanks for posting this story. This issue doesn't affect me, as I don't use EA forums, but it is still something that I find completely unacceptable. I've bought (yes, with money) every RPG Bioware ever released for the PC (and I think I also have a copy of Shattered Steel), but combined with the emphasis on DLC (which requires logging in) in recent titles, this means I will not be buying (or pirating) DA2.

(Apologies for all the parentheses. I'm in the middle of On Lisp [paulgraham.com].)

(Actually, I never liked the commonly accepted Lisp indentation. I like closing in the same column on a new line as the open, not at the end of indented code.
(with the exception of single line/short commands))

Turns out there are consequences to your speech. More so when you're using something you don't own. Arguably you don't really own anything. If the right person decides they want your stuff, they'll just take it. Technology is just increasing the pool of people who can.

I was also banned from my steam account because paypal choose a transaction I've made with Valve to check my identity. Their system was faulty and after confirmation(Phone calls to land line and CC verification), It took several phone calls & more than a week of back & forth to get everything in order.

Mean while, I lost access to all the games under my Steam account because Paypal stopped 1 payment & I had this account for 4 years. I had almost 20 games in my Library & couldn't play them until paypal released my money. Sure, I understand they wanted to be paid, but having total control over 20 of my games is really frightful.

It took me almost 2 years before I bought another steam games & honestly, if I can avoid using this kind of system, I will. I rather have a boxed DVD than letting someone have total control over something I paid for... I mean it's not like I don't know how to get the games for free...but I don't pirate because I feel it's wrong, and this is how they thank you... Anyhow

Thank you for reminding me of your DLC centric business model. You have again shown that a pirated version of your software is superior than that of the product offered in your online store. I hope you enjoy alienating your paying customers.

This guy obviously had a legitimate copy, since his game copy was tied to his forum account. Now it no longer works. Do you believe he's going to go "shucks, I shouldn't have done that. Here's $60, may I have another copy please?"

No. At best, he goes "fuck it and fuck you, I'm done with your game." More realistically he goes out for ten seconds of Google'ing, finds a crack and continues on his merry way. Turning a paying customer into a pirate. What he does about Dragon Age III (or whatever) is certainly up in the air. If I were him, I wouldn't give them another dollar of mine. Of course, I might stil want their game... I wonder if there's any solution to wanting to play a game without paying the creator?

Not to mention, of course, how he reacts with his friends who might be intersted but not have bought the game yet. "Yeah guys, I have a cracked copy right here, just give me a blank DVD."

The theater, skating rink, amusement park or ski resort does not get to break the stuff that you bought at the venue before getting kicked out. If you bought popcorn at the theater, you could take it with you when you left.

Because they are the publishers of some absolutely fantastic games.
You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore, because almost all of them include some restriction or price tag we're not happy with.
The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience, or accepting the restrictions and enjoy the game after all. Considering that option 1 makes virtually no difference to EA, the choice is often easily made for option 2. But IMO, even having made that choice, it's still valid to rant about the restrictions on the entertainment. You may have bought the game, but that doesn't mean you fully agree with the restrictions it comes with.

Agree with what you say, but would add that this is now the second time that I've bought an EA game (a steam purchase in this case) which I've later regretted because I probably would have witheld my purchase had I known about some of the stuff the publisher was doing.

The first case was worse, really, because it directly affected my enjoyment of the game. That was Command & Conquer 4, which had "needs an always-on net-connect" DRM (and an unreliable version at that), despite the fact that I hadn't found

Because people like to play videogames and Electronic Arts either puts out your favorite game, owns your favorite developer, is planning to own your favorite developer, or has an existing minority stake in your favorite publisher or developer. I mean, seriously, it's hard to come up with a list of great games that doesn't have a huge amount of EA representation. They're not even the only "evil" corporate game publisher/developer out there, so you'd have to boycott others in a similar situation. It'd be kind